FONTI E STUDI SUL FEDERALISMO E SULL’INTEGRAZIONE EUROPEA

Collana del Centro interdipartimentale di ricerca sull’integrazione europea

Università degli Studi di Siena

SENT Thematic Network of European Studies

The Scientific Committee of the Thematic Network of European Studies (SENT) was formed by:

Federiga Bindi (University of Rome Tor Vergata)

Ariane Landuyt (University of Siena) Kjell A. Eliassen (BI Norwegian Business School)

Vita Fortunati (University of Bologna) Stefania Baroncelli (Free University of Bozen)

Ioan Horga (University of Oradea) Sophie Vanhoonacker (Maastricht University)

Cláudia Toriz Ramos (Fernando Pessoa University) Juliet Lodge (University of Leeds)

Amy Verdun (University of Victoria) Alfred Tovias (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

ANALYZING EUROPEAN UNION

POLITICS

EDITED BY FEDERIGA BINDI AND KJELL A. ELIASSEN

SOCIETÀ EDITRICE IL MULINO

This book was published in the framework of the SENT project (Thematic Network of European Studies), financed by the Euro-pean Commission. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

I lettori che desiderano informarsi sui libri e sull’insieme delle attivi-tà della Società editrice il Mulino possono consultare il sito Internet: www.mulino.it ISBN 978-88-15-14718-9 __________________________________________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2011 by Società editrice il Mulino, Bologna. Tutti i di-ritti sono riservati. Nessuna parte di questa pubblicazione può essere fotocopiata, riprodotta, archiviata, memorizzata o trasmessa in qualsia-si forma o mezzo – elettronico, meccanico, reprografico, digitale – se non nei termini previsti dalla legge che tutela il Diritto d’Autore. Per altre informazioni si veda il sito www.mulino.it/edizioni/fotocopie

5

FOREWORD

The speed and depth with which the European Com-munities/European Union has evolved is breathtaking and has radically shaped the life of the continent. Ever since the beginning of this ambitious economic and political project, scholars around the world have tried to explain the under-lying logic behind it and the mechanisms of its functioning. Thus, a plethora of studies developed alongside the evolu-tion of the EU.

SENT (Network of European Studies) is an innovative and ambitious project which brought together about 100 partners from the EU member states, candidate and asso-ciated countries, and other parts of the world. It was a far reaching project aimed to overcome disciplinary and geo-graphical-linguistic boundaries in order to assess the state of EU studies today, as well as the idea of Europe as trans-mitted by schools, national politicians, the media, etc.

SENT’s main goal was to map European studies, in or-der to get a comprehensive picture of the evolution of Euro-pean studies over the last decades in different disciplines and countries. This approach permitted to achieve a better un-derstanding of the direction these studies are now taking. Five disciplines were identified where EU studies have par-ticularly evolved: law, politics, economics, history, and social and cultural studies. The mapping of EU studies thus in-cludes a review of the most studied issues in EU studies to-day, the main academic schools, the most influential journals and books published, but it also shows how local realities and national identities affect the study and teaching of Eu-rope around the world. In addition, an important work was done in mapping and discussing teaching methodologies in relation to European studies with the aim of introducing and diffusing the most up-to-date techniques.

6

The project was structured in various working groups, corresponding to their respective disciplines. These net-works worked closely together to ensure a discussion across geographic boundaries. At the same time, the SENT net-work brought together scholars around the world in a di-rect and multidisciplinary dialogue in a General Assembly held in Rome in July 2010 to reflect on the state of the EU disciplines and their future.

We are very proud to present the results of this ambi-tious project in a series of volumes. The following are being published with Il Mulino:

1. European Integration Process Between History and New Challenges, edited by Ariane Landuyt;

2. Analyzing European Union Politics, edited by Fede-riga Bindi and Kjell A. Eliassen;

3. Integration Through Legal Education. The Role of EU Legal Studies in Shaping the EU, edited by Valentino Cattelan;

4. Questioning the European Identity/ies: Deconstruct-ing Old Stereotypes and Envisioning New Models of Repre-sentation, edited by Vita Fortunati and Francesco Cattani;

5. Ideas of Europe in National Political Discourse, edited by Cláudia T. Ramos;

6. Communication, Mediation and Culture in the Mak-ing of Europe, edited by Juliet Lodge and Katharine Sari-kakis.

Other two volumes are part of the SENT series and will be published elsewhere: Mapping European Economic Integration, edited by Amy Verdun and Alfred Tovias with Palgrave and Teaching European Studies Curricula and Teaching Methods, edited by Stefania Baroncelli, Roberto Farneti, Ioan Horga and Sophie Vanhoonacker with Sprin-ger.

The extensive work of this project was coordinated by Prof. Federiga Bindi, Director of the Jean Monnet Euro-pean Centre of Excellence of the University of Rome Tor Vergata and her valuable team, and benefited from the generous support of the European Commission.

The scientific organisation was assured by a core

7

coordinating committee formed by: Federiga Bindi, Ariane Landuyt, Kjell A. Eliassen, Vita Fortunati, Stefania Baron-celli, Ioan Horga, Sophie Vanhoonacker, Cláudia Toriz Ramos, Juliet Lodge, Amy Verdun and Alfred Tovias.

It is fair to say that these volumes show how the EU has uniquely affected not only the daily life on the ‘old continent’, but also its scholarly work. We hope that this project opens the path for further extended debates about these transformations providing food for thought and re-search tools for young researchers, practitioners and scho-lars of European affairs alike.

8

CONTENTS

The Development of Euripean Integration Studies in Political Science: An Introduction by Federiga Bindi and Kjell A. Eliassen p. 11 Early Approaches to European Integration by

Jonathon Moses 21 Who Produces European Studies? A Bibliometric

Study by Matti Wiberg 47 Political Science and the Study of European Inte-

gration in Austria by Gerda Falkner 59 European Studies as an example of a Multi- and

Inter-disciplinary Eduction Model in the Bal-tic States by Tatjana Muravska 77

The Governance Turns in EU Studies in Belgium

by Arnout Justaert, Karoline Van Den Brande, Tom Delreux and Edith Drieskens 91

Analyzing European Union Politics in Bulgaria by

Ivan Nachev 113 EU Studies in Denmark and Sweden by Salla Gar-

ski, Knud Erik Jorgensen and Ian Manners 133 Little Ado About Little: European Studies in

Finland by Matti Wiberg 153

9

The State of EU Studies in France by Olivier Costa p. 193 German EU Studies Oder EU Studies in Germany

by Tanja Börzel and Torben Heinze 217 Greek Political Science on Europe: a Scholarly-

Outline by George Contogeorgis and Dmitris N. Chryssochoou 269

European Integration Studies in Political Science

in Hungary by Edina Ocsko 289 The Development of European Studies in Italy by

Federiga Bindi and Serena Giusti 307 The Development of European Integration Studies

in Political Science: the Netherlands by Hylke Dijkstra and Maarten Vink 355

The Study of the European Union from Outside:

European Integration Studies in Norway and Iceland 1990-2010 by Kjell A. Eliassen, Marit Sjøvaag Marino and Erikur Bergmann 381

The Development of European Integration Studies

in Political Science: the Case of Poland by Katarzyna Pisarska 411

Mapping European Integration in Portuguese

Political Science by Paulo Vila Maior and Claudia T. Ramos 435

European Integration Studies in Romania by Irina

Angelescu 465

10

European Studies in Spain by Francesc Morata and Izea Ollora p. 485

The Awkward Subject?: The Study of European

Union Politics in the UK and Ireland by Nick Sitter 505

The Development of European Integration Studies

in Political Science in Canada by Sarah Dun-phy and Finn Laursen 545

Research and Teaching the European Union in

Latin Americ: Background, Context, Trends and a Bibliographical Selection by Joaquim Roy 575

EU Studies in Russia Today by Alexander Strelkov,

Mark Entin and Oleg Barabanov 615 A Mapping of European Studies East of the Mis-

sissippi: Political Science by Eleanor Zeff and Kelly B. Shaw 637

EU Studies on the West Coast of the USA by

Davis Andrews 675 Towards European Studies? by Federiga Bindi,

Kjell A. Eliassen and Irina Angelescu 687 Notes about the contributors

11

FEDERIGA BINDI AND KJELL A. ELIASSEN

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES IN POLITICAL SCIENCE:

AN INTRODUCTION The rapid and profound transformations underwent

by the European Communities (EC) /European Union (EU) have been closely followed by a growing specialized literature. This literature has taken many forms and ap-proaches, focusing on a variety of topics, from the internal developments of the EU to the impact of the EU member-ship on the member states. Last but not least, the message of this literature has not only been conveyed in English, but in a variety of languages. However, there have been few efforts to provide an overview beyond specialized niches. The aim of this volume is to address this absence by pro-viding an overview and carrying out a comparative analysis of major contributions to the study of European integration and European policies in most EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. The use of the Eng-lish language makes this endeavor accessible, and, with contributions from native speakers of the various countries covered, it provides a pool of information that would oth-erwise be inaccessible to most readers. In this sense, the readers will be presented with a basic introduction of Eu-ropean integration of every country covered – most of which the reader is unlikely to know well.

The emphasis of this volume is more on identifying the broad lines of development than on a detailed mapping of all the specialized publications in the different countries, an exercise that would go beyond the time and space pro-vided for this endeavor. Given the different contexts of each country covered, the contributors of the volume have been given the liberty to approach their chapter in the best way they deemed appropriate. However, there have been three guiding questions for each of them to answer in their chapters: a. what the status is today regarding major con-

12

tributions and important institutions and scholars in this field in their country; b. where the study of this subject comes from in terms of scientific fields, traditions and im-portant research institutions; and c. why the development of European integration studies has take the road indicated in the major contributions presented.

The volume covers the majority of the EU and EFTA member states, but also some non-European countries, including the United States. As mentioned before, it would be impossible to comprehensively include all the literature produced on EU integration studies seen from a political science perspective. The approach adopted instead was to put together a panel of country experts and rely on their expertise and in depth knowledge of the country studied in order to select the major contributions, centers and re-searchers for their country analysis. This approach entails the analysis of the experts’ analysis of the different tradi-tions, historical developments and national and European importance of the major contributions. Furthermore, some authors have chosen to also identify the most influential works on European integration translated, studied and quoted by national authors in their work. It is for this rea-son that the volume has selected only authors with a tho-rough understanding of the realities and mentalities of the countries analyzed.

1. Political science and the study of European integration This volume focuses on the study of European inte-

gration, including EU policy-making and EU policies. The approach is that of a country-by-country analysis. The un-derlying question of this project is therefore: how have European integration and EU politics been analyzed, and what have been the major empirical and theoretical contri-butions in each country? The focus is then on the academic traditions of EU studies in the different member and non member states in an attempt to identify the most important contributions and publications within this field. This

13

would, in its turn, permit to single out a set of contribu-tions to the literature on European integration that are, in a sense, transnational: they are studied and referred to, or even contested, across (European) boundaries.

The decision to adopt a country-by-country logic was justified by three reasons. First, in most cases research on the EC/EU grew out of the fields of domestic or interna-tional politics. Second, the existence of literature in differ-ent languages means that it is very difficult for most re-searchers to keep abreast of the literature in more than a handful of countries. Third, different national academic traditions have brought about a considerable variation in how political scientists have approached the study of the EU.

Both the time period and the number of publications relevant for such an endeavor of European integration stu-dies in each country will differ considerably from chapter to chapter. Some new member states in the East hardly had any academic and scientific EU studies before the mid-1990s, whereas other countries, most notably some of the EU founding members, present a long history of EU inte-gration studies. It is therefore impossible to develop a framework for analysis which fits all countries under inves-tigation, but we will try instead to outline in this introduc-tion some important dimensions which govern individual chapters.

The central units of observation for each chapter are individual academic journal articles, book chapters and books that contribute to our understanding of European integration published by political science scholars. In gen-eral, the scholars mentioned in the chapters are either na-tionals of the country in question or affiliated with an aca-demic institution in that country.

Another obstacle encountered in the writing of the individual chapters was the difficulty to define the concept of European integration studies in political science. It is difficult in many countries to separate between political science, law and history because several writers from these fields are writing in the same interdisciplinary traditions

14

and to a large extend with the same concepts, as is the case, for example, in Portugal. An even greater problem is to differentiate between European integration studies, and EU policy studies. This was a challenge that had to be met in order to ensure a balance in the coverage of the two in the different chapters. The evaluations of the national ex-perts were of vital importance here, because they were fa-miliar with the disciplinary traditions and understandings in the respective countries.

Considering the large number of works produced in the field in the various countries studied and the limited space allotted to each individual chapter, a selection and a special strategy had to be adopted in deciding which works to include. First of all, “publications” were considered to be both books and articles in scientific journals. A “con-tribution” was defined as a publication which made a sig-nificant impact on the study of European integration in the country in question. In most cases only publications which represented major contributions were included in the study, especially those that are more policy-oriented. Major national research programs, institutions and initiatives will also be covered, analyzing their impact on the overall pro-duction of European integration studies. Furthermore, the individual chapters do not generally cover text books and other publications which mainly summarize previous na-tional or European studies nationally. Exceptions have been made based on the context of each country or where, for example, it was useful to point out certain publications that would be part of the transnational literature men-tioned in the beginning.

This strategy implies that the proportion of all rele-vant European integration and European policies studies covered and referred to in each chapter is limited and will vary considerably from country to country. Many of the users of this volume will also be interested in an overview of the relevant contributions from a country they would like to know more about. Thus, in an attempt to make this volume more user-friendly, we have chosen to include bib-liographies after each chapter and not an integrated com-

15

prehensive bibliography at the end of the book. In addition to the country chapters, and as a part of

our strategy to make a comparative study of the contribu-tions to European integration and European policy studies in different European countries, we have two introductory chapters: one by Jonathan Moses on EU studies in the first decades of European integration, and one by Matti Wi-berg on contribution of scholars from different European countries in the three most relevant journals: JCMS, Euro-pean Union Politics and Journal of Common Market Stu-dies.

2. Dimensions of the study of European integration As the chapters of this volume show, studies of EU

politics and European integration may be classifies in a two-by-three table (below). The first dimension distin-guishes empirical from more normative studies: the rele-vant criterion here is the difference between analyses that are primarily designed to explain the phenomenon at hand (EU politics, European integration) and analyses that are primarily designed to provide policy advice or to shape the political debate (the normative level). Although much of the literature includes both elements, most of it can be classified as predominantly falling into one or another cate-gory.

Level of analysis Empirical Normative

Macro EU integration The goal of the EU Meso Political institutions Institutional reform Micro Policy implementation Policy reform

The second dimension distinguishes between three le-

vels. At the macro level, the central research questions con-cern European integration: the dependent variable is the trajectory of European integration or its current level. More empirical elements of this research agenda includes for example the realists’ and neo-functionalists’ effort to

16

explain the dynamics and limits of European integration. Normative elements include the debates over what the goal of European integration ought to be, including for example the early debates between functionalists and federalists.

At the meso level, the central research questions con-cern the EU institutions: how they operate and how they can be improved. Empirical analyses include analysis of the operation of the Commission, Council etc.; normative stu-dies include for example the vast debate on the democratic deficit or debates about regulatory design.

At the micro level, the central research focus is on the operation of the political system of the EU: the dependent variables tend to be policy output, for example policy im-plementation in any given sector. Here many articles and books cross the border between empirical studies and normative recommendations, inasmuch as they offer both positivist analysis and use this as the basis for policy rec-ommendations. An important caveat here is that the present project is primarily concerned with case studies that have a direct bearing on European integration or offer relevant lessons; the field of policy studies per se is simply too wide to cover in this project. The selection of scientific works relevant for the focus of this volume on European Integration compared to more general policy studies is, how-ever, the most difficult task. One type of analysis we would like to include is studies of the relevant country and the EU, like Italy and the EU or Norway and the EU even if they are mainly policy oriented.

Obviously the cells in this matrix are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. The aim is only to use this matrix as a way to identify and differentiate contributions to the study of European integration. The importance of these different “types” of studies will vary from country to coun-try and over time. The matrix is not necessarily meant to be followed in each and every chapter but we find that it could add value to our comparative analysis.

17

3. The geographical dimension of this volume As indicated, this volume covers most of the EU and

EFTA countries, as well as countries and regions from around the world. In this sense, the present volume is high-ly ambitious and original. It offers a unique, and historical, perspective into how the EU has been seen and studied in various places of the world, some of them only indirectly affected by the European integration process.

Here we show the list of the different chapters and the countries they cover.

1. Introduction – Federiga Bindi (University of Rome Tor

Vergata) and Kjell A. Eliassen (Norwegian School of Business - BI)

2. EU Studies until the 1990s – Jonathon Moses (Norwe-gian University of Science and Technology)

3. Who Produces European Studies?: A Bibliometric Study – Matti Wiberg (University of Turku).

4. Austria – Gerda Falkner (University of Vienna) 5. The Baltics – Tatjana Muravska (University of Latvia) 6. Belgium – Arnout Justaert and Karoline Van Den

Brande and Tom Delreux (Katholieke Universiteit Leu-ven), Edith Drieskens (Netherlands Institute for Inter-national Relations Clingendael)

7. Bulgaria – Ivan Nachev (New Bulgarian University) 8. Denmark and Sweden – Salla Garski (University of Hel-

sinki), Knud Erik Jorgensen (Aarhus University) and Ian Manners (Roskilde University)

9. Finland – Matti Wiberg (University of Turku) 10. France – Olivier Costa (University of Bordeaux) 11. Germany – Tanja Börzel and Torben Heinze (Free Uni-

versity of Berlin) 12. Greece – George Contogeorgis and Dmitris N. Chrys-

sochoou (Panteion University of Athens) 13. Hungary – Edina Ocsko (Central European University) 14. Italy – Federiga Bindi (University of Rome Tor Vergata)

and Serena Giusti (Università Cattolica in Milan) 15. The Netherlands – Hylke Dijkstra and Maarten Vink

18

(Maastricht University) 16. Norway and Iceland – Kjell A. Eliassen and Marit

Sjøvaag Marino (Norwegian School of Business - BI) and Erikur Bergmann (Bifrost University)

17. Poland – Katarzyna Pisarska (Warsaw School of Eco-nomics)

18. Portugal – Paulo Vila Maior and Claudia Ramos (University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal)

19. Romania – Irina Angelescu (Graduate Institute of Ge-neva)

20. Spain – Francesc Morata and Izea Ollora (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

21. UK and Ireland – Nick Sitter (Central European Uni-versity and Norwegian School of Business – BI)

22. Canada – Sarah Dunphy and Finn Laursen (Dalhousie Arts and Social Sciences Faculty)

23. Central and Latin America – Joaquim Roy (Miami Uni-versity)

24. Russia – Alexander Strelkov (Russian Academy of Sciences), Mark Entin and Oleg Barabanov (Moscow State University, MGIMO)

25. US (East Coast) – Eleanor Zeff and Kelly B. Shaw (Drake University)

26. US (West Coast) – Davis Andrews (Claremont Colleges in California)

27. Conclusions – Federiga Bindi, Kjell A. Eliassen and Irina Angelescu

4. The Structure of the chapters The volume begins with a historical chapter that

presents the early history of European integration, up to the adoption of the Single European Act. The following chapters are the individual case studies, with each chapter providing an overall view of the literature on European integration and EU politics in the relevant EU and non-EU member states,. Each chapter will begin with a brief intro-duction of the history of the EU relations with the country

19

analyzed and how this interaction has affected the Euro-pean integration studies.

Each chapter then includes an analysis of the perspec-tive or perspectives that have shaped research on the EU in the relevant member states(s). The central disciplinary tra-ditions or theoretical approaches (including research pro-grams, institutions) are also covered.

A central point in the chapters is not merely to ac-count for the development of EU studies and its various strands, but also to assess the quality of the research and its central findings. The impact of the literature can be as-sessed in two ways: in terms of the impact on broader aca-demic debates as well as in terms of the impact on the poli-cy debate in the state in question (or in the EU), or even directly on policy making.

The chapters take into account the time dimensions, though it is often more pertinent to think in terms of pe-riods of time rather than chronologically. In some cases, as appropriate, it is be important to distinguish between the period before membership, the early phase of membership, the debates surrounding the adoption of the Single Euro-pean Act, the Treaty changes in the 1990s, enlargement, etc. In other cases, some of these periods coincide: candi-date period and the early membership period coincide with the 1990s reforms and enlargement for states that recently joined the EU. Or, for countries outside Europe, it is sig-nificant to note how the state of the discipline has been affected by transformations taking place far away from the country analyzed. A final point in each chapter is a com-parative assessment; the location of the research in the state(s) at hand in the broader literature.

We would like to extend a few words of gratitude to the people and institutions that have contributed to make this publication possible.

This publication is the result of almost four years of work in and around the University of Rome Tor Vergata. At the Jean Monnet European Center of Excellence of the University of Rome Tor Vergata we owe in particular to Marco Amici and Elena Cantiani for the precious adminis-

20

trative and organizational support and to Irina Angelescu for her invaluable editing work. We would also like to thank Pavlina Peneva for her help in the early phases of this project. This book could have not seen the light with-out the precious co-financing of the European Commis-sion: the ERASMUS Multilateral Networks program for the chapters about European countries and the Jean Mon-net Action for the chapters about non-European countries.

21

JONATHON W. MOSES

EARLY APPROACHES TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

According to Michael O’Neill, «no single theory of

regional integration can expect to offer a definitive account of the immensely complex international process that is European integration» [O’Neill 1996, 49]. He is right. Since the end of World War II, much ink has been spilled in a futile attempt to secure «bragging rights» for the best approach to understand European integration. The result is a hodgepodge of overlapping analytical approaches that continually reinvent themselves in light of new develop-ments on the ground, but too often fail to recognize the contribution and/or utility of competing approaches. While this analytical and conceptual overlap can be bewil-dering, it can also provide a useful key for interpreting contemporary discussions about European integration because many of these theories draw heavily from earlier approaches.

This chapter aims to provide that key. By examining the nature of early (pre-1990) integration debates, it aims to provide a common historical backdrop for the subse-quent national approaches to understanding European integration1. There are at least two reasons why this sort of historical introduction might prove useful.

First, much of today’s discussion about European in-tegration draws from the sort of contributions that domi-nated both political and academic discussions in the early post-war years. For this reason, many of the following chapters might present themselves against the background

1 Given the real constraints offered by a book chapter, this

contribution will be brief. More elaborate introductions to European integration theory can be found in [Wiener and Diez 2003; Rosamond 2000; O’Neill 1996; and Michelmann and Soldatos 1994].

22

provided here, using it as a point of departure for their own – nation-based – depictions of recent developments.

A second justification can be found in the nationalist approach that motivates our anthology. By mapping out and comparing diverse national approaches to European integration we assume that European academics have con-tributed to analytical discussions about the nature of Eu-ropean integration. This is a rather remarkable turn of events, as most of the early analysis of European integra-tion was provided by American academics (whereas the European contribution was more often found among poli-ticians and activists).

Karl Kaiser suggested that this early American influ-ence was a result of the different ways in which Americans and Europeans learn political science. Writing in 1964, Kaiser believed that European political scientists did not have a systematic approach to the process of European political integration [Kaiser 1996, 157] and that:

Uninhibited by the Europeans’ feeling of uncertainty about

the «new Europe» or the imposing presence of traditional values, the American scholars (whose European origin, incidentally, is mostly not very remote) have felt more freely able to investigate and theorize about political and social changes in Europe that go «beyond the nation-state». To them, more than Europeans, Western Europe represents a huge laboratory of change that offers unique opportunities to the social scientist of searching into the nature of modern society by observing the process of change, experimenting with and testing a set of hypotheses that could help to explain it [Kaiser 1996, 158].

If Kaiser’s depiction is true (and there is little reason

to think it is not), then the anthology that follows should provide a map of the changing nature of European political science. To retrace early analytical contributions to Euro-pean integration, the remainder of this chapter sketches four main approaches: federalism, functionalism, neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism. In staking out the terrain in this way, it is important to emphasize that these four approaches are not the only ones for understanding

23

European integration, nor are they entirely exclusive (i.e. there is a great deal of overlap among them)2. Still, these approaches remain central to understanding contemporary discussions about the nature of European integration, and this four-part typology has become rather conventional.

Another caveat should be added before moving on. In presenting these four approaches, the reader might get the impression that the discussion about European integration has progressed in a linear or logical form over time. This impression of historical progression may have some heuris-tic value, but it is inaccurate. As we shall see, many of the most useful debates occurred amongst contemporaries across these disparate approaches. More importantly, each of these approaches still influence contemporary discus-sions about the nature of European integration. In short, it is important to bear in mind that both the typology and the order in which they are presented are analytical conve-niences more than accurate descriptions of a fixed histori-cal subject.

The chapter concludes with a short summary of the commonalities and differences of these four different ap-proaches across four distinct points of comparison: author-ship, agency, objectives, and the role of politics.

1. Federalism While the dream of a united Europe is not new to the

20th century (consider, most impressively, Charlemagne), it was reborn in more republican garb in the aftermath of the two world wars. With the failures of the League of Nations and its component nation states now evident to all, new schemes were needed to build a lasting international peace. To do this, it was generally assumed that a new type of

2 Other authors rely on different (albeit related) typologies. Consid-er, for example, Pentland’s [1973] four-part distinction between federal-ism, pluralism, functionalism and neo-functionalism, and/or Mutimer’s (1994) division into federalism, functionalism, neofunctionalism and communicative interactionism.

24

political authority was needed. The most commonly pro-posed form of workable government was an international federation of states.

In its most basic form, federalism refers to a political compromise in which power is divided and shared between institutions representing a central government authority (on the one hand) and those of the component (regional) units (on the other). The objective of this sort of institu-tional arrangement is to provide the central authority with power over policy areas where the component units are held to be ineffective, while maintaining as much sove-reignty and power as possible at the lowest (component) level. In short, federalism is an institutional arrangement for limiting the power of the central government authority to those areas that are seen as necessary and common to the component political units. In the words of Brailsford:

In Europe, home to much of the bloodshed, this Federal

Ideal was in great demand: What shall we have gained if we can realize anything resembling this project of Federation? Firstly and chiefly we shall abolish internecine war in Europe, the homeland of our civilization. That is a negative statement. In the positive sense we shall achieve vastly more: we shall rescue the priceless values of this civilization itself. It cannot survive the totalitarian corruption that assails all it prizes - truth and mercy, honest deal-ing and intellectual integrity. If the peoples of Europe can be led to erect this structure, it will be because they demand a political framework within which they may lead a social life governed by reason and humanity. If we abandon the old concept of the sove-reign state, it will not be because we have changed our views about a legal theory. It will be because we have reached an ideal of hu-man fraternity that embraces our neighbors, who in other languag-es think the same civilized thoughts. We can end war only by wi-dening patriotism. If that is what we intend, the rest follows inevit-ably. Our Federation will organize the democratic discussion and decision of our common affairs. It will respect the rich variety of a Continent, that has preserved many stocks, many cultures, many tongues, through all the vicissitudes of its history. It will end the anarchy of our economic life by orderly planning for the common good. In so far as it still must arm, it will arm for the common safety alone [Brailsford 1940].

25

The attraction to federalism can be explained, in part, by its remarkable philosophical pedigree. While the tradi-tion of federalist thought can be traced back to ancient Greece, and is evident in medieval European political thinking, there are two main modern sources of federalist thinking3. The first of these is the plethora of peace plans from the 17th and 18th century which aimed to eliminate war in Europe by introducing some form of pan-European political organization. While Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace [1795] is perhaps the best-known of these, he was not the only (or the first) to put forward this proposal4.

The second source of modern federalist thinking is derived from the American experience. This experience has two elements. First, the debates over the nature and scope of federalism, as evidenced in the Federalist Papers, provide much of the theoretical foundations for European discussions about federalism, the role of the state, and its relationship to constituent individuals. At the same time, America’s use of a constituent assembly to produce a new constitution (and to generate the legitimacy needed for it to last) became a model plan of action for many European federalists.

Of course, drawing from the American experience is anything but straightforward, as the original model was not international in nature. Indeed, there are no successful cases of federations that have involved federating already-established and functioning sovereign states. Existing fed-erations have been constructed by means of joining recent-ly emancipated colonies, or in the case of Switzerland, small cantons with a very long history of political interac-tion. Consequently, there has always been disagreement

3 I am, rather unfairly, excluding the broad body of European

thought concerning small communities – which can be dated back to the Middle Ages – but which is best exhibited in the work of Rousseau and Proudhon.

4 Similar views were held among several notable Frenchmen, includ-ing both diplomats — such as Maximilien de Bethune, Duc de Sully and Abbé Saint Pierre; and philosophers — most notably Saint-Simon and Proudhon.

26

about the appropriateness of the underlying (American) model, and the means by which a federal European state might be brought about.

In Europe, these differences might be depicted in terms of a split between bottom-up and top-down federal-ists. For the bottom-up federalists, a European federation needs to link political authority to the people. To do this, Europe needs an American-style constituent assembly, where a federal constitution can be drafted by a popularly-elected body, but then adopted and implemented by mem-ber states. Originally, many federalists hoped that the Council of Europe could bring about this type of constitu-ent assembly. When this failed to happen, hope was trans-ferred onto the European Parliament (which is at least elected by universal suffrage).

Top-down federalists, on the other hand, are less con-cerned about the institutional details of the eventual out-come (although they too envision a federal Europe, in due time). Instead, this approach seeks to bring about incre-mental institutional change in an effort to move Europe in the right direction. By realizing that much power lies in the hands of national officials, and that the creation of a feder-al state involves member states ceding sovereignty to a new federal government, top-down federalists embrace direct intergovernmental agreements as a means for integrating Europe. As a consequence, this group tends to hang their hopes on different agents of integration. While bottom-up federalists focus on the need to legitimate the new federa-tion with a popularly-elected body or constituent assembly, top-down federalists focus on the integrative role of the European Commission and Council of Ministers.

While both groups agree about the necessity of creating new pan-European institutions to overcome the shortcomings of the nation state, the first group tends to focus on one-stop institutional reform, the latter on the process of achieving incremental gains in the right direction (rather than securing a particular end). As a consequence (and as we shall see) top-down federalists offer a bridge to the second group of integra-tion approaches: the functionalist approach.

27

At the political level, a federalist approach to Euro-pean integration can draw on a long political tradition that covers a remarkably broad spectrum of supporters. After all, interwar advocates of federalism found support among a disparate community of political groups that stretched from the German Social Democrats, on the one hand, to the conservative Hungarian Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, on the other. Because of this breadth of support, federal-ism offered a useful banner under which the Allied Resis-tance could gather5. Indeed, one of the earliest (and highest level) calls for a federal solution came in 1940, when Wins-ton Churchill — advised by a group of British civil servants and French partisans in London that included Charles de Gaulle and Jean Monnet — called for a union of Britain and France6.

Many resistance fighters saw federalism as the only means for righting Europe’s apparent incapacity to resist dictatorship or invasion7. This hope found a home in a number of different venues, most of which were directly influenced by: the remarkable Altiero Spinelli8 in the Ven-totene Manifesto [Spinelli and Rossi 1941]; a wartime con-gress of European federalists (Switzerland, 1944); a post-war congress of European federalists (Paris, 1945); and the 1946 establishment of a transnational federalist movement, the Union of European Federalists (UEF). For many in the federalist movement, the 1949 creation of the Council of Europe promised an institutional foundation for a new

5 See Lipgens [Lipgens 1982, 44-58] for an account of the role of fe-deralism in the Resistance.

6 Following the war (and his electoral defeat) Churchill returned to the theme of a European federal union, calling for the creation of a «United States of Europe» in a September 1946 speech in Zurich. Later, after returning to the Prime Ministership in 1951, he opposed Britain’s inclusion in a federal plan for Europe.

7 The leading voices in this movement were Altiero Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi, Henri Brugmans [1969] and K.C. Wheare [1990].

8 Altiero Spinelli (1907-1986) was a long-time communist, an Italian representative to the European Commission (for six years, with respon-sibility for industrial policy), a member of the European Parliament (for ten years), and an influential actor on the European political scene through his activities in the so-called Crocodile Club [Menéndez 2007].

28

federal Europe. Indeed, Spinelli solicited the Council of Europe to call for a pan European Constituent Assembly.

But cracks in the European federalist façade were al-ready evident in the 1946 founding of the UEF. The Union of European Federalists was anything but united — the group differed on tactics, about the nature of the federalist vision, and about the role of nation-states in bringing about a new, more integrated Europe. Worse, developments on the ground seem to be undermining federalist support, as national elites were repositioning themselves to offer more conventional, nation-based, approaches to reconstruction — approaches that built on the redistributive politics of the Left.

This split became even more evident in the subse-quent publicity campaigns associated with the Montreux Congress of 1947, where “world federalist” and “integral federalist” factions differed over the appropriate scope of a European federalist design. In 1956, this apparent split became institutionalized as two distinct groups. The first group, the Mouvement Federaliste Européen (MFE) placed its faith in the European Parliament and hoped that it might act as a constituent assembly [Spinelli 1972]. In-deed, this hope almost came to fruition in 1984, when the Parliament adopted the Draft Treaty Establishing the Eu-ropean Union (a treaty drafted by Spinelli himself)—though this hope was eventually torpedoed by national interests. An alternative group of federalists formed the Action Européen Federaliste (AEF) in 1956, in support of any and all developments that contributed to furthering supranational integration.

To summarize, the federalist approach to integration asks us to focus on particular institutions as a means to overcome the inherent shortcomings of individual nation states. Although the original federal vision was not limited to Europe — it was global in nature — Europe’s evident difficulties, after two world wars, made it the most likely recipient of federalist attention. This attention was focused on making formal changes to political institutions and pro-cedures in order to bring about social harmony while pro-

29

tecting cultural/social diversity. For federalists, the driving force for change is implicit, but assumed to be a conse-quence of an underlying shift in the collective political imagination. As a consequence, federalists wanted to in-troduce institutions that can capture such a ground-level shift in perspectives, while avoiding intervening (and med-dling) political elites at the national level.

2. Functionalism In 1943 — with the end of WWII in sight, and against

the backdrop of the federalist vision for a post-war world government — David Mitrany proposed a functionalist alternative for international integration. His A Working Peace System argued for the need to create a new system, a network of transnational organizations sharing a functional core, which could constraint states and prevent war. The foundations for this argument were laid in the interwar period, when Mitrany published The Progress of Interna-tional Government, where he argued that civilized men «should renounce the pagan worship of political frontiers as the source of our public law and morals» [Mitrany 1933, 118]. In short, Mitrany believed that the nation state should be replaced by a system of international (function-based) agencies9.

Mitrany had been impressed by a number of earlier arrangements that had been developed along strictly func-tional lines (be them national, bilateral or international). What interested him was the fact that the process of intro-ducing function-based institutions substantially altered what was traditionally understood to be the constitutional arrangements of states. More to the point, these sorts of changes were being secured without any formal constitu-tional bargains. Thus, in Roosevelt's New Deal:

9 See also Mitrany [1948].

30

The significant point in that emergency action was that each and every problem was tackled as a practical issue in itself. No attempt was made to relate it to a general theory or system of government. Every function was left to generate others gradually, like the functional subdivision of organic cells; and in every case the appropriate authority was left to grow and develop out of actual performance. Yet the new functions and the new organs, taken together, have revolutionized the American political system [Mitrany 1943, 21-22].

By avoiding the need to introduce formal constitu-

tional changes, functionalist designs were able to overcome the sort of strong political resistance that Roosevelt’s New Deal had met in the U.S. For many Europeans, Mitrany’s functionalist alternative provides a means for securing the sort of integration that is seen to be necessary, but being resisted by national elites. Rather than gathering states together to draw up a blueprint for political action, as fe-deralists would have it, functionalists encourage elites to build particular (functional) authorities to administer the provision of narrowly-defined services.

The utility of this approach lies in the transnational nature of international problems. For example, the integra-tion of once national railway or airline transportation sys-tems requires new organizations that can straddle national frontiers. At the same time, the spread of international exchange brings with it new types of transnational prob-lems (e.g., the spread of disease, investment, cultural ex-changes, etc.). In short, the increasingly transnational na-ture of human exchange creates a demand for increasingly transnational solutions. In recognizing this, functionalists aim to introduce function-based institutions with the au-thority to solve transnational problems. In so doing, they set the conditions for the spread of that authority in a way that can eventually undermine nation-based systems of regulation and authority: «states would, in other words, be tricked into ceding their sovereignty by having it emptied of meaning» [Mutimer 1994, 25].

For the functionalist, it is legitimate to undermine na-tional sovereignty in this way, as functionalists understand

31

politics to be intrinsically corrupt (while administration is seen to be the key to human cooperation). Because of this, functionalists are remarkably optimistic about the adminis-trative capabilities of elites who respond to a technocratic (rather than populist) logic. Indeed, for the functionalist, change is institutionalized and facilitated by the increased cooperation and exchange among technocratic elites.

The careful reader may have noticed that I have quiet-ly slipped away from using references to Mitrany and re-ferred instead to (more general) functionalists. The reason for this is that Mitrany was actually strongly opposed to regional integration (such as European integration) be-cause he feared that it would undermine — rather than transcend — global efforts of the state-based model of which he was so critical [Mitrany 1966]. For Mitrany, in-ternational or regional federations would create as many problems as they solved.

In the same way that Spinelli can function as an advo-cate for early federalist approaches, the efforts of Jean Monnet can be used to illustrate the functionalist ap-proach. The person of Monnet also functions as a useful bridge linking the federalist and functionalist approaches to European integration. For Monnet believed:

…in starting with limited achievements, establishing de fac-

to solidarity, from which a federation would gradually emerge. I have never believed that one fine day Europe would be created by some grand political mutation… (that) the pragmatic method we had adopted would…lead to a federation validated by the people’s vote; but that federation would be the culmination of an existing economic and political reality, already put to the test…it was a bringing together of men and practical realities…[Monnet 1978, 346-7]

Indeed, Monnet is often held up as exemplary of the

functionalist approach, as he — unlike so many of his compatriots — deliberately stood outside the nationalist corridors of power in order to better persuade others of the higher ideals of supranationalism. His bridging func-tion is evident in his advocacy for what he refers to as the

32

«new method of common action»: This profound change is being made possible essentially by

the new method of common action which is the core of the Eu-ropean Community. To establish this new method of common action, we adapted to our situation the methods which have allowed individuals to live together in society: common rules which each member is committed to respect, and common insti-tutions to watch over the application of these rules. Nations have applied this method within their frontiers for centuries, but they have never yet been applied between them. After a period of trial and error, this method has become a permanent dialogue be-tween a single European body, responsible for expressing the view of the general interest of the Community and the national governments expressing the national view [Monnet 1963].

By the late 1940s, it seemed as though functionalism

held great practical promise for European integration. In the architecture of the Schuman Plan, which resulted in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), one can easily discern a functionalist logic: the Plan involved a li-mited surrender of national sovereignty over important areas in exchange for explicit economic and political ad-vantages to member states. As the French Foreign Minister who gave his name to the plan, Robert Schuman, told the Council of Europe:

Certain participating states will be abandoning some degree

of sovereignty in favor of the common Authority, and will be accepting a fusion or pooling of powers which are at present being exercised or capable of being exercised by the govern-ments… Thus the participating nations will in advance accept the notion of submission to the Authority that they will have set up and within such limits as they themselves will have defined… The countries associated in these negotiations have indeed set their feet on a new road. They are convinced that, without in-deed renouncing traditional formulas, the moment has come for us to attempt for the first time the experiment of a supra-national Authority which shall not be simply a combination or concilia-tion of national powers [Schuman 1950].

The apparent success of the Schuman plan seemed to

33

offer a means for integrating Europe under the radar — a way to bring about integration, while avoiding a direct confrontation with national interests, identity and influ-ence. In hindsight, however, it is evident that this interpre-tation of events proved overly optimistic. The ECSC and its Authority never encroached on member state sovereign-ty to the extent that its founders anticipated. Indeed, when European functionalists tried to use the same trick to ex-tend the community’s authority in new areas (e.g. defense and foreign policy cooperation) they were stopped in their tracks10.

In short, the founding institutions of the European Union — the Coal and Steel Community (established in 1951) and the subsequent Common Market and Euratom (launched in 1958) — provide examples of the promise of functionalist approaches, but they also created the condi-tions that secured the rising popularity of neofunctionalist approaches in the late 1950s and 1960s.

3. Neofunctionalism The neofunctionalist approach is most commonly as-

sociated with Ernst B. Haas’ project on the European Coal and Steel Community – in his book, The Uniting of Europe, 1958 – and his subsequent work on the International La-bor Organization – in his book, Beyond the Nation-State from 196411.

10 The Pleven Plan (named after the French Premier, René Pleven,

presented to the French parliament in 1950) called for the creation of a European army, controlled by a European Council of Defense Ministers, a European Defense Minister, and a Supreme Allied Commander in time of conflict. The six ECSC member states responded favorably at first, signing another treaty in Paris in 1952, which was to pool their defense forces in a common security effort (rearming West Germany). But these efforts were repealed and the European Defense Community (EDC) treaty of 1952 could not be ratified by the French Parliament in 1954. Indeed, Mitrany resigned from the ECSC’s High Authority in protest/frustration.

11 This is, of course, a great simplification, as the work of his student,

34

Haas begins his work by rejecting two important parts of Mitrany's functionalist argument. First of all, Haas was willing to embrace regional processes of integration. This provided more legitimacy for the European (neo)functiona-list project. Second, Haas doubted the utili-ty (and reasonableness) of trying to separate the political from the functional. In the neofunctionalist approach that resulted, politics was to play a much more evident role. In Beyond the Nation-State, Haas noted that:

Power and welfare are far from separable. Indeed, com-

mitment to welfare activities arises only within the confines of purely political decisions, which are made largely on the basis of power consideration. Specific functional contexts cannot be separated from general concerns. Overall economic decisions must be made before any one functional sector can be expected to show the kind of integrative evolution that the Functionalist describes...The distinction between the politician and the expert, simply does not hold because issues were made technical by a prior political decision [Haas 1964, 23].

To fill the conceptual gap that seemed to separate

technical and political integration, neofunctionalists have developed the concept of «spillovers». The spillover con-cept rests on an assumption that states and regions are interconnected in such a way so that problems in one area will raise problems (or require solutions) in another. At the outset, it is assumed that such spillovers will occur only among different functional tasks, but as the center grows, more politically salient areas will become affected.

Ultimately, the expectation is that as the tasks and powers

of the central institutions are increased through the operation of the spillover process, integration will gradually encroach on that politically sensitive area where vital interest are at stake. So, an embryonic political community will emerge and grow [Harrison 1974, 77].

Leon Lindberg [1963], is also central. A similar sort of argument, though not directly applied to Europe, is Karl Deutsch’s [1953] and Deutsch et al.’s [1957] notion of security communities.

35

Neofunctionalists explain regional integration in terms of particular societal and market patterns that are pushing elites into building common supranational institu-tions. Their focus is trained on the functional interconnec-tivity of policy areas (areas of so-called «low politics» where the potential of spillover effects is greatest). For this reason, neofunctionalists often burrow down on economic policy, where it is easier to find functional spillovers across policy areas. Functional spillovers lead to cultural spillov-ers, and the creation of a new European identity (overcom-ing narrow national identities). As Europeans redefine their loyalties and identities — now as Europeans — they will come to support further political integration.

To discuss their conception of integration, neofunc-tionalists often refer to the notion of «supranationality», or the pooling of state sovereignty (as opposed to its transfer). The sovereign authority of a state is extended to a suprana-tional authority, where it is pooled with that of its fellow member states. The spillover process suggests that more and more of the states' sovereignty will be pooled in this manner, but the precise institutional form of the suprana-tional authority is usually not defined.

At the time of the publication of the Uniting of Eu-rope (1958), the prospects for a supranational Europe were perhaps better than ever. Haas had at least impeccable timing. He offered Europe a theory of social moderniza-tion, where the main agents of change were economic, po-litical and social actors (not reluctant nation states). Inte-gration was seen to be driven by technocratic imperatives, and the key actors were more open-minded, elites and su-pranational groups who were more amenable to transna-tional cooperation, and who were already involved in man-aging and directing a growing transnational political econ-omy.

Here, in contrast to Mitrany, is a strong argument for regional integration, couched in social scientific terms, but explicitly engaged with politics. Clearly, neofunctionalism is imbued with a strong normative commitment to the in-tegration of Europe. But this commitment was originally

36

steeped in the language of positive science. From the out-set, Haas was quite clear that the strength of his approach lie in its commitment to empirical verification. Over time, however, this position became somewhat of a liability as real world developments came to undermine his claim that «the established nation state is in full retreat in Europe...» [Haas 1961, 366].

With the course of time, and the nature of develop-ments in Europe, neofunctionalist approaches have fol-lowed Haas’ lead in lowering their scientific sights. Much of the neofunctionalists’ early determinism has been tem-pered by the faltering progress toward integration in the late 1960s. European integration appeared more as a prob-abilistic — rather than a deterministic — outcome. By the mid-1970s, it was becoming increasingly evident that states were still playing an important role in the furthering of European integration.

4. Intergovernmentalism Even at the height of its popularity, neofunctionalism

was dogged by the realization that nation states continued to play an important role in forming the new Europe. While neofunctionalists understood the dynamics of Euro-pean integration in terms of a social process of moderniza-tion (the result, often, of technological developments), intergovernmentalists continued to focus on the role of national states in shaping and exploiting these develop-ments.

At the outset, of course, the progress of European in-tegration seemed to offer a frontal assault on the realist approach to international politics. Such an (realist) ap-proach understands states as self-interested, power-seeking, and rational actors that prioritize actions that maximize their chances of survival. States such as these are unlikely to freely cede sovereignty to some amorphous international body of function-based bureaucrats. Indeed, the initial attraction of neo-functionalism may have been its

37

ability to explain such apparently odd behavior (odd from the perspective of the dominant, realist, approach)12. Still, a state-centered approach to European integration was al-most always available and became increasingly influential as developments on the ground revealed the important role still played by states.

As early as 1966, Hoffman was criticizing what he saw to be the naïveté of functionalist and federalist approach-es13:

Europe cannot be what some of its nations have been: a

people that creates its state; nor can it be what some of the oldest states are and many of the new ones aspire to be: a people created by the state. It has to wait until the separate states decide that their peoples are close enough to justify the setting up of a European state whose task will be the welding of the many into the one [Hoffmann 1966, 910].

The analytical leverage provided by an intergovern-

mentalist approach was already evident in the Luxembourg Compromise of 1966 (which ended the impasse created by Gaullist resistance to creeping supranationalism, secured a national veto for member states, and showed the reluctance of Europe’s political elites to any project that would un-dermine their (nation-based) positions of power). The Council of Ministers had consolidated its hold on Com-munity affairs by developing its presidency functions and by extending the involvement of COREPER (the members’ permanent diplomatic corps in Brussels). In short, by the 1970s it would seem that there was a new balance of pow-er, and that power was controlled mostly by member states.

While often referred to as the «doldrum years» of in-tegration, or a period of «Euroslerosis», by advocates of

12 It is in this light that we can understand the utility of neo-functionalist-inspired approaches in tangential fields of research, such as Keohane and Nye’s [1977] interdependence theory, Ruggie’s [1975] regime theory, and Schmitter’s [1974] neocorporatist approach.

13 Another influential, but subsequent, state-based approach is found in Milward [1984; 1992].

38

greater integration, researchers in Europe began to turn their attention to the way in which the new European insti-tutions were actually working [Wallace et al. 1977]. This new policy-oriented perspective began to reveal a distinctly confederal approach to Europe [Wallace 1982], as evi-denced by the introduction of tri- (later bi-) annual summit meetings of the European Council (which were aimed to curb the supranational ambitions of European officials, and where the Commission president was invited, but ob-viously played a subservient role to national elites).

By the late-1980s, intergovernmentalist approaches were in a position to take the offensive14. At the forefront of these was the liberal intergovernmentalist approach as-sociated with Andrew Moravcsik. Moravcsik’s aim was to show how the influence and power of national actors has been enhanced (not constrained) by Europe’s new supra-national institutions. In so doing, he provides a two-step, sequential, model of preference formation and internation-al bargaining.

In the first step, Moravcsik employs liberal interna-tional relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE) theories to show how national chiefs of government aggregate the interests of their domestic constituencies, meld them with their own, and articulate a national prefe-rence with respect to European integration. In the second step (international bargaining) Moravcsik draws from bar-gaining theory and Putnam’s two-level games to show how

14 First, in 1984, there was a sudden (and rather unexpected) end to the struggle over British budgetary contributions at the Fontainebleau European Council of 1984. At the same time, a new, more energetic, Commission was established (with Jacques Delors at the helm), and the rehabilitation of the Franco-German partnership proved a driving force for further integration. This new state-driven approach to integration seemed evident in the Milan Summit’s (1985) trade-off between national and supranational interests and a decision to complete the Single Market (in the subsequent Single European Act of 1986). While the focus here is on the role of intergovernmental approaches, it is important to emphasize that others have noted the role of supranational and non-governmental actors, (e.g., the Commission, informal processes within the COREPER, and the role of the European Roundtable of Industrialists).

39

national governments transfer their preferences (from stage one) to the EU’s intergovernmental bargaining table. Even-tual outcomes are then seen to reflect the relative power of each member state. Supranational institutions, such as the European Commission, are shown to exert little influence.

The result is an approach to European integration which does not seek to minimize the role of supranational institutions, but rather hopes to show how these institu-tions are consistent with member-state national interests — and can actually strengthen those interests. In short, inter-governmentalists remind us to bring the state back into explanations of the integration process in Europe.

5. Conclusion By retracing the steps of earlier integration theorists

we are reminded of the spread of approaches that continue to influence contemporary discussions. It is my hope that this reminder will prove useful as we move into more re-cent discussions about European integration in distinct national contexts. In this concluding section I would like to briefly compare these four approaches along four impor-tant dimensions, as summarized in Table 1.

The first dimension concerns the nationality and background of the headlining-proponents associated with early European integration approaches. As has been fre-quently noted, most early analytical approaches to Euro-pean integration were provided by American academics, while the different practices of integration have been led by influential Europeans on the ground, such as Spinelli, Monnet and Delors. This observation should be kept in mind as we canvass the more recent national literatures in the chapters that follow.

40

TAB. 1. Comparative Summary of the Four Early Approaches

Approach Headliners Relevant Actors

Means or

ends

Role of Politics

Federalism Spinelli/Churchill We the people Ends Largely ignored

Functionalism Mitrany/Monnet Technical elites Means Downplayed

Neo-functionalism Haas/Delors Transnational elites Means Marginal

Intergovernmentalism Hoffmann & Moravcsik National

elites Means Central

Source: Author’s own. The second comparative dimension concerns the rele-

vant actors under study. Each approach focuses on a dif-ferent type of actor for bringing about European integra-tion. For federalists this actor is most amorphously linked to the notion of a public will, situated in the people at large (and institutionalized in the form of a Constituent Assem-bly). The other three approaches focus on the role of elites in bringing about integration, whether they are technical (functionalists), transnational (neofunctionalists) or nation-al (intergovernmentalist) in origin. In light of this elite-bias in most integration approaches, it is perhaps not surprising that the European Union has such difficulty enticing public support for its more ambitious integration efforts.

The federalist approach also differs from the others in its focus on the institutional outcome of integration, as opposed to its process. Because of this, federalists are often characterized as being politically naïve — they tend to ig-nore the important ways in which technical development, international exchange and various incentives might be used to entice elites into bringing about greater integration.

This brings us to the last point for comparing the four approaches: the role of politics. Given their unwillingness to focus on political processes, it is perhaps not surprising that politics remains a mostly latent variable in most fede-ralist approaches to European integration. This is particu-larly odd when one considers that the strongest thrust of

41

European federalism was provided by active politicians in Europe. Even more surprising, however, is the relatively low status of politics in the functionalist and neo-functionalist approaches. Among neo-functionalists in par-ticular, the role of politics is largely confined to the art of deception. Indeed, for political scientists interested in Eu-ropean integration, it is rather revealing that only the inter-governmentalist approach provides a clear and explicit appreciation of the role and utility of politics in bringing about political bargains that can secure (or limit) future European integration.

It is because of their different interests, ambitions, and levels of analyses that each of these four approaches remains salient. Another reason for this continued salience may be the unique nature of the European project itself. As William Wallace noted, the European Union is a new polit-ical creature that largely defies traditional typologies and experiences [Wallace 1982]. For this reason, it is not very reasonable to expect a single analytical approach to explain all the changes in the pace, structures and extent of Euro-pean integration. For better or for worse, we tend to draw on different approaches to highlight the various aspects of integration that interest us.

References

Brailsford, H. N. 1940 The Federal Idea (http://www.federalunion.org.uk/arch

ives/brailsford.shtml - last visited on July 10, 2008). Brugmans, H. 1969 La Pensée politique du fédéralisme, Leyden, Sijthof. Deutsch, K. W. 1953 The Growth of Nations: Some Recurrent Patterns of

Political and Social Integration, in «World Politics» Vol. 5, n. 2, pp. 168-195.

Deutsch, K.W., Burrell, S.A., Kann, R.A., Lee Jr., M., Lichterman, M., Lindgren, R. E., Loewenheim, F. L. and van Wagenen, R. W.

42

1957 Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: In-ternational Organization in the Light of Historical Expe-rience, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Haas, E. 1958 The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic

Forces, 1950-1957, Stanford, Stanford University Press. 1961 International Integration: The European and the Univer-

sal Process, in «International Organization» Vol. 15, n. 3, pp. 366-392.

1964 Beyond the Nation State: Functionalism and Interna-tional Organization, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

1964 Technocracy, Pluralism, and the New Europe, in A New Europe?, edited by S. R. Graubard, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 62-88.

Harrison, R. J. 1974 Europe in Question: Theories of Regional International

Integration, London, Allen and Unwin. Hoffmann, S. 1966 Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and

the Case of Western Europe, in «Daedalus» Vol. 95, n. 3, pp. 862-915.

1995 The European Sisyphus: Essays on Europe, 1964-1994, Boulder, CO, Westview.

Kaiser, K. 1996 L’Europe des savants: European Integration and the

Social Sciences, in The Politics of European Integration. A Reader, edited by M. O’Neill, London, Routledge.

Kant, I. 1795 Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, in Kant: Politi-

cal Writings, edited by H. Reiss, Cambridge, Cam-bridge University Press, 1991, pp. 93-116.

Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. 1977 Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transi-

tion, Boston, Little, Brown. Lipgens, W. 1982 A History of European Integration: Volume One 1945-

1947, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lindberg, L. 1963 The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integra-

tion, Stanford, Stanford University Press.

43

Menéndez, A. J. (ed.) 2007 Altiero Spinelli: From Ventotene to the European Con-

stitution, in «ARENA Report» N. 1(http://www.recon project.eu/main.php/RECONreport0107.pdf?fileitem=4325406 – last visited on May 19, 2011).

Michelmann, H. J. and Soldatos, P. (eds) 1994 European Integration. Theories and Approaches, Lan-

ham, University Press of America. Milward, A. S. 1984 The Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1945-51, Lon-

don, Routledge. 1992 The European Rescue of Nation-States, London, Rout-

ledge. Mitrany, D. 1933 The Progress of International Government, London,

Allen and Unwin. 1943 A Working Peace System: An Argument for the Func-

tional Development of International Organization, Lon-don, Royal Institute of International Affairs.

1948 The Functional Approach in Historical Perspective, in «International Affairs» Vol 24, pp. 350-61.

1966 The Prospect of Integration: Federal or Functional, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 4, n. 2, pp. 119-149.

Monnet, J. 1963 A Ferment of Change, in «Journal of Common Market

Studies» Vol. 1, pp. 203-211. 1978 Memoirs, London, Collins. Moravcsik, Andrew 1991 Negotiating the Single European Act. National Interests

and Conventional Statecraft in the European Communi-ty, in «International Organization» Vol. 45, n. 1, pp. 19-56.

1993 Preferences and Powers in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 31, n. 4, pp. 473-524.

1998 The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, NY, Cornell Uni-versity Press.

Mutimer, D. 1994 Theories of Political Integration, in European Integra-

tion: Theories and Approaches, edited by H. J. Michel-

44

mann and P. Soldatos, Lantham, University Press of America, pp. 13-42.

O’Neill, M. 1996 The Politics of European Integration. A Reader, Lon-

don, Routledge. Pentland, C. 1973 International Theory and European Integration, Lon-

don, Faber and Faber. Rosamond, B. 2000 Theories of European Integration, Houndmills, Ba-

singstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave. Ruggie, J. G. 1975 International Responses to Technology: Concepts and

Trends, in «International Organization» Vol. 29, n. 4, pp. 557-83.

Schmitter, P. C. 1974 Still the Century of Corporatism?, in «Review of Poli-

tics» Vol. 36, n. 1, pp. 85-131. Schuman, R. 1950 Speech to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of

Europe on 10 August, in «Council of Europe - Consul-tative Assembly. Reports», second session, August 7-28, 1950. Part I. Sittings 1 to 12. 1950, pp. 94-99 (http://www.ena.lu/ - last visited on July 10, 2008).

Spinelli, A. and Rossi, E. 1941 The Ventotene Manifesto, in Altiero Spinelli: From

Ventotene to the European Constitution, in «ARENA Report» N.1, edited by J. Ménédez (http://www.recon project.eu/main.php/RECONreport0107.pdf?fileitem=4325406 – last visited on May 19, 2011).

Spinelli, A. 1972 The European Adventure—Tasks for the Enlarged

Community, London, Charles Knight. Wallace, W. 1982 Europe as a Confederation: the Community and the Na-

tion-State, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 21, pp. 57-68.

Wallace, H.,Wallace, W. and Webb, C. (eds) 1977 Policy-Making in the European Community, London,

Wiley.

45

Wheare, K. C. 1990 What Federal Government is, in Studies in Federal

Planning, edited by P. Ransome, London, Macmillan, pp. 23-24.

Wiener, A. and Diez, T. (eds) 2003 European Integration Theory, Oxford, Oxford Univer-

sity Press. Wincott, D. 1995 Institutional Interaction and European Integration: To-

wards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Intergovernmen-talism, in «Journal of Common Markets Studies» Vol. 33, n. 4, pp. 597-609.

47

MATTI WIBERG

WHO PRODUCES EUROPEAN STUDIES? A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY

1. Introduction This chapter presents a bibliometric1 study of the ar-

ticles published in three leading journals of European stu-dies. We answer the following research question: «Which countries did the articles come from?». We have chosen «European Union Politics» (EUP), «Journal of Common Market Studies» (JCMS), «Journal of European Public Policy» (JEPP) as case studies2. The analyses cover the years 1990-2009 for JCMS, 1994-2009 for JEPP, and 2000-2009 for EUP. The survey covers the whole period for the first and third journals and the latest 20 years for JCMS.

We will address the following questions: How many articles were published in these journals? How many dif-ferent individuals published in them? Which countries did they represent? How large was the contribution of the dif-ferent countries in producing the scientific output pub-lished in the three selected journals?

It is, of course, unrealistic to assume that countries in one way or another contributed to the cumulative scientific output. It was the individual researchers who produced the output, not the countries. The nationality of scientific out-put is, of course, absurd because science is communistic in the original Mertonian sense3.

1 Bibliometrics is the application of statistics to texts. The term was

coined by Alan Pritchard (1969) to replace «statistical bibliography». 2 Others could have been chosen. It is open to debate whether some

other journals represent European studies better. 3 The notion of national representation is problematic, to put it

mildly, as a particular scholar who just happens to work in country X may not even necessarily want to represent that country. This paper stands in a certain sense in blatant contradiction to at least some of the

48

The chapter is organized as follows. First we set the scene. Second, we analyze the contribution of the article producer countries and answer our research question. Third, we end the chapter by taking a look forward and suggesting a few bibliometric research questions.

2. Preliminary remarks This part will set the framework for analysis more

clearly. A few words are in order on our subject field, basic unit of analysis, the dependent variable, categories of analy-sis, metrics of measurement, and sources for the data.

The notion of «European studies» is vague, to say the least. It could refer to a variety of entities and in the scien-tific literature many alternatives of this concept have been presented and discussed. We do not go into these consid-erations in this modest chapter. Here the concept of «Eu-ropean studies» is operationalized to represent any article published in the journals under study without paying any attention to the scholarly discipline the articles represent. Nor do we take any strong substantial stand on the crucial question of the true intellectual value of these articles to the

Mertonian norms of science, often referred to by the acronym CUDOS: communism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality (novelty in research contributions), and skepticism. (Merton did not refer to origi-nality in the essay that introduced the norms). The set of ideals that are dictated by what Merton takes to be the goals and methods of science and are binding on scientists include:

communism: the common ownership of scientific discoveries, ac-cording to which scientists give up intellectual property rights in ex-change for recognition and esteem;

universalism: claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality or the like;

disinterestedness: which scientists are rewarded for acting in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless;

organized scepticism: all ideas must be tested and are subject to rig-orous, structured community scrutiny.

49

field of European studies. For the purposes of this analysis, we simply make two (rather unrealistic) assumptions:

a. All articles contribute to European studies and

b. All articles contribute to it equally. Our unit of analysis is represented by the original

scientific article published in the EUP, JCMS or JEPP. Only original articles are included. Notes, introductions to thematic issues, book reviews, discussion contributions and the like are excluded4. Our dependent variable is the num-ber of articles coming from different countries. We are, in other words, interested in the country of origin of every article. This is operationalized by the institutional affilia-tion of the authors as given in the articles5. There are 32 countries included in our study: the 27 EU member states, as well as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. This follows simply from the fact that these coun-tries are represented in the SENT-project. All other coun-tries are grouped together as the 33th group and called, perhaps ironically, «the Others».

The metrics of measurement is very basic: every single article is given a value of 1. If authors from more than one country co-authored6 a particular article, its value is divided among them equally7. We use the following straight forward

4 Those pedants who are disturbed by this exclusion are gladly in-

vited to do their own more comprehensive analyses. Good luck! 5 To reiterate (cf. note 3): this assumption is not without problems. It

could be unfair to claim that author A coming from country X and staying abroad in country Y during the time of the publication of her article really contributes to the scientific output of Y rather than to the output of X. To control for the «real» origin of all authors would be a huge task for any detective and is surely beyond the competence and interest of the current author. Anyway, whose opinion should be the decisive here? Is a Briton that has lived in, say, Norway, more a Brit than a Norwegian? We could easily drown in the murky seas of identity poli-tics, a field that is happily left to others.

6 Or, to be a bit more precise: at least jointly published as it is a well-known dirty secret that authors may contribute in different amounts.

7 An alternative way would be to give 1 point to all authors, i.e. to credit every author with 1 point. This would, however, lead to different values for different articles, which in itself would be unfair, without

50

formula: 1/N of authors. So, for instance, if one Greek, one Italian and one Latvian published together an article, the same score goes to Greece, Italy and Latvia: 1/3 = 0,33.

Now we will offer a brief presentation of the three chosen academic journals. JCMS was launched in 1962 and it has established itself as one of the leading journals in the field of European studies. It is currently published in asso-ciation with UACES, the University Association for Con-temporary European Studies. According to the journal’s website:

«Journal of Common Market Studies» is the leading journal

in the field, publishing high quality, and accessible articles on the latest European Integration issues. For 40 years it has been the forum for the development and evaluation of theoretical and empi-rical issues in the politics and economics of European integration, focusing principally on developments within the EU. JCMS is committed to deepening the theoretical understanding of Euro-pean integration and aims to achieve a disciplinary balance be-tween political science, economics and international relations, including the various sub disciplines such as international political economy8.

JEPP was launched in 1994 and it has also established

itself as one of the leading journals in the field of European studies. It is currently published by Taylor & Francis. Ac-cording to the journal’s website:

The primary aim of the «Journal of European Public Policy»

is to provide a comprehensive and definitive source of analytical, theoretical and methodological articles in the field of European public policy. Focusing on the dynamics of public policy in Eu-rope, the journal encourages a wide range of social science ap-

really weighting every article’s scientific weight. Here we assume in an ultra-naïve fashion that all articles are of equal value. It is open to any-one to allocate appropriate weights to all articles. As the current author does have neither a proper theory nor justified metrics, this challenging enterprise is not done here.

8 http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 (last visited on June 7, 2011).

51

proaches, both qualitative and quantitative9.

Finally, EUP was launched in February 2000 and in a short period of time it managed to establish itself as one of the leading journals in the field of European studies. It has always been published by SAGE. The journal’s web site offers more information about its understanding of the mission of European studies:

«European Union Politics» is an exciting international jour-

nal that provides the forum for advanced research on all aspects of the processes of government, politics and policy in the European Union. Launched by a global editorial team and with a commit-ment to the highest scholarly standards, «European Union Poli-tics» adopts a transnational approach to the challenges that the project of European integration faces in the 21st century10.

There are several ways for ranking, evaluating, catego-

rizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the aver-age article in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The annual impact factor is simply a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. Thus, the im-pact factor